i really doubt that a 28 ft canopy would fit in the smaller nb6 container. i have packed nb6's and i gotta tell ya its tite.extending the container so a 28 would fit would not be legal as an emergency parchute.the faa approves military personel assemblies for use (i dont recall the wording in the f.a.r.s )but unless the container was built with extensions at the factory and there was a military drawing/ contract #, it would nt be legal for use as an emergency parachute.

of course if cossey DID somehow manage to put the much bigger (ABOUT 200 sq feet) and bulkier 28 ft canopy into the smaller nb6 container ,then cooper would likely have had an extremely HARD pull .remember,this was back in the days of cones(which the nb6 and nb8 containers had 4), NOT closing loops. rigs with cones exhibit higher ripcord pull forces than the same container with loops.

I really doubt that a 28 ft canopy would fit in the smaller NB-6 container. I have packed NB-6's and i gotta tell ya its tight. Extending the container so a 28 would fit would not be legal as an emergency parachute. The FAA approves military personnel assemblies for use (I dont recall the wording in the FARs) but unless the container was built with extensions at the factory and there was a military drawing/contract #, it would'nt be legal for use as an emergency parachute.

Poynter Volume 1 has a procedure for extending the side flaps of an NB-6 or similar, but it's clear that it's just for use as a sport back, with canopies like T-10 or PC.

Just to muddy things up a bit: Poynter's description of an NB-6 says it has a 26' canopy. The description of NB-8 is "Same as NB-6 except that it has a 28' white nylon flat circular canopy." I wouldn't think "same" necessarily means "identical dimensions." More likely, it means "similar in appearance." If so, I'd think it possible that jumpers/riggers of the time may have used the terms interchangeably, similar to the way we do now when we use "T-10" as a generic term to mean an green 35' parabolic canopy, including modified T-10s and MC-1 series canopies.

i really doubt that a 28 ft canopy would fit in the smaller nb6 container. i have packed nb6's and i gotta tell ya its tite.

I'm with you on this. I have packed a few NB-6's many a year ago and they are very tight.

Here is the funny part: Skyjack71 thinks it actually makes a difference. There so many variables to this whole thing that nothing makes sense. Oh, and the rate of descent is theoretical; Yes, I do know that rate of descents could have been measured but under what atmospheric conditions, not the same and on Cooper's jump. What if he had blown a panel on opening, then what about the rate of descent?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you actually said you were able to get a stand up landing once with the 26 conical. Not that it matters much, I doubt Cooper had the conditions that alllowed you such a nice land (and remember he has a 22 pound bag strapped to his waist).

But, you're right... this debate is elementary. It certainly has some relevance if we want to determine how much pain Cooper may have been in.

The serious question to determine is the timeline. 8:15 seems a little late, but even at 8:15 there's small odds that he lands near a tributary, and by small, I actually mean he might be pushing 8:16... I don't know.

Someone said a typical fligth path is 8 miles wide, with +/- 4 mile tolerance to either side. Why I think that would not hold in this case is because this amount of leeway would put the plane directly in PDX airspace... and not that flight control at PDX wouldn't move everyone else out of the way for a hijacked plane, but why fly there when there's no need?

If the FBI & NWA were so certain that the timeline was no later than 8:12 (and this was after factoring in a +/- 1 min of tolerance) then why push it out to 8:15 if we can't even get Cooper to die at 8:15? (remember, he has to deploy his chute almost immediately, then land on flat landscape on a farm, and die upon impact and no one ever find him)...

If the 8:15 mark is so weak, there's really no point in discussing flight path because we know where the plane is between 8:10 & 8:12.

The thing about flight path though that certainly makes for a great debate... if the flight path really is 8 miles wide (and I may doubt this is true for V23), then there's REALLY no way Cooper has a planned escape route.

I'm sorry, all these theories about what gadgets he might have with him to tell him where he's at... and memorizing the turns on V23... if the plane can be that far off course, he could land as far as 8 miles from where he wanted to... it would seem to me that if Cooper planned his escape that thoroughly, then he sure made A LOT of assumptions and left a lot to chance.

Conclusion: Cooper had no definitive escape planned other than jump and possibly make his way home somehow.

From Coopers actions and requests it can be logically concluded Cooper wanted to jump just after wheels up. Cooper wanted to takeoff with the airstairs down, which could mean he wanted them down to insure they were open for his escape or he wanted to jump as soon as possible after takeoff.

Because Cooper began trying to open the stairs a few minutes after takeoff, it stands to reason he wanted out as fast as possible.

Cooper had problems getting the stairs to open and it was not until the captain slowed and leveled the plane that the stairs dropped. A few minutes after the pressure change occurred.

Cooper never requested a flight path, he never requested an update from the flight crew and no one reported he even had on a watch that he could have timed wheels up. Also, V 23 is not the only low altitude route south from Seatac.

Conclusion, Cooper had little idea where he was when he jumped. His original plan, based on what he thought he knew, was toast when the airstairs could not be open on takeoff. He now had to think on his feet. "no big deal, I'll just open them like they told and jump ASAP." More problems, the stairs won't open, "plan C" jump as soon as they do. Each minute that passes puts him a few miles from his original jump location. The stairs finally open, he tries to think what to do, "where am I, not where I wanted to be." tries to gauge it for a minute or two, then "F it, I am this far into it, I'll make it up as I goooooo........"

This smacks in the face of those that would say Cooper executed his plan down perfectly. It just doesn't seem that way, and therefore, discussions about an accomplice and discussions about him planning out his alibi are on precarious ground.

The arguments in favor of such suspects already have their flaws, and the lines of reasoning pointed out by Ckret only diminish what little possibilty remains.

In other words, those that would say this crime has been solved by two slueths, one of which has passed away, cannot be serious in their reasoning. If they are serious, then they either missed something or they failed to explain how they can make up this deficiency.

I can't say we can rule out anyone... but based upon what we know it sure appears 99% unlikely that it was Mayfield. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the facts... but then again, maybe we've all gone through a lot of mental gymnastics only to conclude who Cooper likely was and was not, and he just doesn't fit.

If forward throw for a body or bag of money is less than a mile (which it sounds like it's less than 3,000 feet), then I can tell you categorically that there's no way there was a no pull or a lost bag in mid-air.

Not unless we manage to absolutely push out the timeline and move the flight path out 2 additional miles east.

I agree with Ckret. Cooper was planning to jump not very long after takeoff, perhaps into suburbs or outskirts, but not wilderness. Even though it looks like he didnt necessarily plan to jump at night, he must have known it would be evening, and what does he wear? Not even a parka. No hiking shoes, etc. If he thought that he'd be making a night jump into the terrain we think he exited over, he'd have dressed differently, even if just for comfort rather than survival. This wasn't a spur of the minute caper formulated on the plane. He planned, built a "bomb" and researched 727 systems. He must have given some thought to suitable clothing for the jump. He didnt have to dress like a paratrooper. A parka and hiking shoes would not have seemed out of line for a passenger in that area. His attire tells me that he never anticipated exiting where he actually did. I'd bet he was familiar with the general area too and had a plan on how to quickly blend back into civilization unnoticed. That would require landing close to civilization.

I am beginning to think a no pull may have occured. Consider the circumstances: night, cold, high speed exit, possibly no freefall experience, unstable, unfamiliar gear, and maybe an NB6 packed so tight that a normal pull force wouldn't dislodge the pins from the cones, making him think he was pulling on the wrong piece of hardware and letting go of it.

Look how many skydivers have done a no pull after a cutaway, in daylight with very specific emergency procedures training. Some have even done a no pull without a cutaway. Look at Jan Davis's no pull off El Capitan in Yosemite using unfamilar borrowed gear.

If Cooper were depending on being able to see the ripcord handle he'd have some problems after an unstable high speed night exit. Also, the bag may have flopped up in a way that prevented free access to the ripcord handle.

I remember some of my earliest solo FF jumps in the 60s (no AFF back then)... spinning wildly, no altimeter, trying to get stable. It was very disorienting even with a slow exit in bright daylight. My jumpmaster told me stories (true?) about FF students going in pulling desperately at webbing until impact thinking it was their ripcord handle. He told me if I did that he'd kill me. He thought that was really funny.

If Cooper had a no pull, his body could be hidden by brush for many years, perhaps forever. If he was a total loner who had just moved away from his last place of residence and not yet put down roots, his absence may have gone unnoticed. I want him to have survived, but I am wondering if he did.

377, Very astute deduction. I've always wondered why he wore the outfit that he did. I had always thought maybe it was because he enjoyed dressing nice or he thought people would view him in a more sophisticated manner and take him more seriuosly if he was dressed up.

In other words, a guy wearing a flannel jacket, jeans, and boots may not be taken as seriously as a guy wearing a business suit, tie, and over coat.

But you're right... he had to give some thought as to the landing. If he thinks he's going to land in a metropolis, he'd want to look the part. (but if he's going to land in a metropolis, he also assumes no one finds it curious that he just parachuted out of the sky).

Do you think he pondered his selection of shoes? If he did, then do you also think he may have modified them in some way as to give them more chance of staying on upon exit?

There is one minor point of contention... According to the U.S. Naval Observatory Astronomical Applications Department,

The sunset for Seattle on Nov 24, 1971 was 4:25 and the end of civil twilight was 4:59.

In other words, by 5:00, it's dark. Even with the delays, Cooper assumed a night jump. This might explain his dark clothing... Because he left from Portland, it's somewhat reasonable that he had been in Portland the night before and knew it would be dark at around 5:00.

Conclusion: If Cooper didn't plan to jump in the dark, then he would reasonably know his jump would be a night jump. If he didn't plan around it, then he certainly assumed it.

If you assume this, even if based upon reasonable thinking, you still have to resolve some serious issues.

FBI & NWA originally felt strongly that the jump occured prior to 8:12. You have to account for this and justify it getting pushed to at least 8:15, and likely more like 8:16 as the plane flies past BTG-VOR.

If you tackle that hurdle, now you have to assume a heading much more eastern than it would have been. In other words, the heading would be a several degrees smaller than what's is assumed.

Let me show you what I mean... the eastern most point the plane was in at 8:12 is point O on Ckret's map (p47). The coordinates of that point are: N 45 51 32.37 W 122 36 24.13 Instead of a heading to BTG-VOR, let's put the heading directly to LC6, the closest NW corner of the tributary zone. That point is: N 45 43 43.47 W 122 32 58.74

The heading between each of these points is 162.944 deg verses 171.075 deg if he aimed for half a mile east of BTG-VOR and 174.538 deg if he headed directly for BTG-VOR. You can see, Captain Scott really has to shave down his turn.

If you tackle that hurdle, you have to account for forward throw by moving the flight path east 2 miles, or add another minute onto the timeline to place the plane squarely upon the target zone (it's an additional 2.8 miles). If you tackle this, now there's really no "brush" for his body to hide in as he's lying on a farm.

1... 2... 3 strikes you're out they used to say.

On what reasonable basis, other than how tough the jump might have been, can we logically conclude a no pull? All evidence that is known points in the other direction.

I really admire your careful analysis. I still think the flight path and/or exit point data could be erroneous. I have seen similar things happen in marine disasters, somehow a mistake is made and the assumed location of a distressed vessel is waaay off the mark.

When we would find floating wreckage or identifiable boat debris we'd figure out the upwind/upcurrent vector and go up it hoping to find survivors. There were many times that wreckage was found in places that could not be reconciled with the distressed vessel's last known position or dead reckoned assumed position or reported radar contacts. The obvious conclusion was that the position data was incorrect.

One SOLID piece of location evidence is the found money. The most likely explanantion is that it got there naturally and was not "carried and buried". There are no doubts about where it was found. If it doesnt fit with the assumed flight track then MY inclination is to doubt the accuracy of the flight track or exit point info rather than coming up with an unlikely (but admittedly possible) scenario involving post jump human transport of the found money.

The most likely explanantion is that it got there naturally and was not "carried and buried".

"Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left!" - Jim Garrison played by Kevin Costner in JFK

I certainly see what you're saying, and I'm not trying to be obstinate... I'm just trying to tell you that there are serious hurdles the least of which are the timeline.

For your theory to hold true, the timeline will probably have to get bumped to 8:16 AND Captain Scott has to deviate far off course in the next 9.5 miles. We're not talking about hundreds of square miles out in the ocean, we're talking about a flight vector and a few minutes for him to take a heading that's way off course.

We have to violate a lot of rules just to support the "likely" scenario that the money floats down streams, floats into LaCamas lake, floats down the Columbia river and does this in a way consistent with the money found in 1980 (having been deposited within the last year).

As tough as the jump may be, the only "evidence" we have of a no pull or even worse, lost money in mid-air is purely conjecture based on opinion and what if's regarding all reliable sources of information.

You then have to say no one found his body or saw the money even after all these things.

I'm no scientist or statistician, but I'd venture to say one hypothesis carries a boatload more weight than the other.

One addtional thing, and this has been pointed out by others well before me.

1. No "missing" persons has ever been known to resemble or fit the Cooper crime. 2. No real, actual evidence has ever surfaced pointing to his demise. (as we've already discussed, the money actually points to his survival).

In the absence of evidence and in the face of strong evidence pointing in the opposite direction, would you still believe he died upon impact?

If this were a case you had to prosecute (he lived or died) which side would you seriously want to argue? If your career depended on winning, which way would you want to argue?

We know he has the money bag strapped around his waist. We don't know if he did something to keep it from dragging, but that's not really the focus of my next set of questions...

He obviously gets rid of the dummy reserve. How? We can only speculate. He obviously gets rid of the briefcase.

My question is, what does he do with the dummy? We talked about him trying to guage the winds by throwing it... is it possible he's dumb enough to strap this thing to his chest? He would need to jerry rig it. Next question: The reason I asked the prior question is, why would he strap the chest chute... it would not be harnessed on and it does not work. Even if he thinks it works, why wear it if it's not harnessed on? Next question: He pulled apart the reserve that was left behind. Presumably to store the money, and then when he figured this would not work, he used the cords to create a make-shift belt to attach the money. In other words, his plan was to wear the front pack, but not to use it as a chute.

Next question: what does he do with the contents in the briefcase? The reason I ask is because he may want some of the contents... if he puts them in reserve canister, he would have taken the chute he already pulled apart. We already know that he's willing to jump without a reserve (he was going to wear the other one to put money into)...

Next question: We have heard that the exit winds would create unbelievable force that could rip the money bag... this argument is based upon how people cannot hold hands and jump at this speed without flying apart at exit.

There's a problem with this line of thought... first, a 22 pound bag of money attached with the cords from a chute is not the same as a 160-200 pound person attached by hand grip.

The two are totally different.

I bring this up to ask my final question: Does Cooper attempt to jump with his briefcase?

That's a very big question... and perhaps we want to start somewhere else, such as, would he have done anything to attach it to himself? Even if he didn't attach it, a 3 pound briefcase with a handle on it would allow Cooper to maintain a solid grip... not two hands gripping where there's not enough force or friction to hold two heavy bodies together, but an actual handle.

If any of you go into a gym and grab a dumbell, I'm sure even the weakest 45 year old among us could hold a 100 pound dumbell... Would a briefcase containing a battery and some dynamite (or roadflares) produce more than 100 pounds of force upon exit?

I'm asking if the winds + the weight of the case are enough to yank the case out of his grip...

Maybe the best way to answer this question would be to determine an approximate weight of the case and it's correspondending force upon exit and then determine if it's humanly feasible for Cooper to keep a grip on it.

I'd love for us to have a discussion on this.

For your efforts, I will leave you with this: Let's assume for a moment that Cooper's bomb was truly dynamite and that it could ignite by attaching two wires the way that Cooper explained... do you honestly think Cooper would either A. Throw this off the aft stairs as he makes his way down, or B. Attempt to hold it as he jumps

In the case of A, sudden motion could bring two wires together or cause some type of destablization... it could explode at the rear of the craft endangering himself and the plane, and the same would go for case B.

Conclusion: The Cooper bomb was not a viable explosive. It likely contained no explosives whatsoever and was likely the way one suspect had mumbled, "road flares".

I'd love to see more of Tina's statement of what she saw to help determine the fate of these objects.

One addtional thing, and this has been pointed out by others well before me.

1. No "missing" persons has ever been known to resemble or fit the Cooper crime. 2. No real, actual evidence has ever surfaced pointing to his demise. (as we've already discussed, the money actually points to his survival).

In the absence of evidence and in the face of strong evidence pointing in the opposite direction, would you still believe he died upon impact?

If this were a case you had to prosecute (he lived or died) which side would you seriously want to argue? If your career depended on winning, which way would you want to argue?

There isnt enough evidence to prove either survival or death. If someone were being prosecuted for homicide for throwing Cooper out of the plane, you'd have a tough time proving that a death had occured much less who the alleged victim was. A motion to dismiss would likely be granted. With identity and death so uncertain, I dont think you could get the case to a jury if the accused had a good lawyer.

I used to think that the fact that nobody likely to have been Cooper turned up missing argued strongly for his survival. I no longer think so. An alienated loner who moves from his last place of residence without telling anybody where he is going could die and who would know? If he were essentially friendless, not close to any relatives, not collecting Social Security and were unemployed, how would his death become noticed?

I think the carry and bury explanation or any human transport explanation for the found money seems very unlikely, but still possible. Natural transport seems the most likely explanation to me, but yes, it is just a hunch.

The plane track is second hand position info and second hand position info can be wrong, even in extremely important situations. I'd be more aligned with you if we saw actual radar plots, overlayed on a map with confirmed radar to map registration, not people's conclusions about radar plots. As crazy as it sounds I think the 727 plot could easily be off by a couple of miles or more and the exit time be off by quite a few minutes. Mistakes happen, wrong assumptions are made, etc etc.

I do not think the found money points to Cooper's survival. It is just as consistent with his death the way I look at it.

I do agree that if he pulled he lived, but did he pull? I can think of a very likely no pull scenario given all the factors present that night. Although I jumped from a DC 9 jet, the highest speed exit I ever did was from a C 130. The Herc throttles were firewalled when we exited. The purpose of the high speed jump was to test some black boxes strapped to me and some others containing pressure sensing electronics. I was asked to make an unstable exit, so that was my excuse, but I think I would have been unstable no matter what my plan was. It was crazy, like being in a high speed washing machine. Had I not been a skydiver and known that I would be slowing down, it would have been a panicky situation. If Cooper had only done military static line jumps then a high speed exit at night might totally disorient and panic him.

I do a lot of hiking and in my area, Vultures find animal carcasses without fail once they start rotting. There must have been some savvy locals who knew that and were on the lookout after the jump made the news. What if someone found Cooper's body with a substantial amount of cash? What then? The guy is already dead so you don't have to harm anyone, the money is in small bills, you have some debts...

Suppose a bill actually would have shown up. People would say he lived, when actually you only have proof that *someone* spent at least one bill.

That's about the same level of proof that the found money provides.

If you think the flight path was off by up to several miles, the timeline way miscalculated, and the money managed to find its way into LaCamas given all there is to the contrary, then certainly you're entitled to your opinion and who am I to tell you that you're wrong?

Everyone else can make up their own mind: 1. The flight path is known up to 8:12 based on USAF radar. 2. The heading between 8:12 & 8:16 would have to be way off 3. The known timeline would have to get pushed back several minutes 4. The plane would have to fly into PDX airspace unless a "huge" compensating turn was made to avoid it, and by huge I mean "oh sh*t Bill! You're way off course, divert starbord now, divert starbord now!"... "flight control, this is Captain Scott NWA 305, everything is okay and we are now on an appropriate path. My apologies, I had nodded off there for a moment" 5. The bag has to rip from Cooper's body either before or after landing 6. The bag must remain intact during most or all of its 7 year journey 7. No one can ever find Cooper's body or the money, even though we've now moved the landing area from the forest to the pasture.

Personally, I think Oswald did it... but I'm obviously in the minority here. That's okay, all opinions welcomed.

The map that Ckret posted on page 47 was based upon radar information provided by the USAF. The map is good through 8:12.

From what Ckret has said, he does not have anything in his "old" FBI file that shows the flight path (based upon) USAF information after 8:12. All he has is a map with a dark line drawn in and some times jotted down on it. I don't think he knows how the flight path on this particular map was derived.

It could have been assumed, or it could have been more than assumed... either way, it's not as accurate as the Jan 72 landing zone map based on USAF radar & analysis by expert skydivers.

Also, this map that Ckret has mentioned (and has been photographed by the Seattle PI) does not show a wild diversion off course.

If he makes his way to any road, he might be able to average a rate of foot speed of 1 mph for 9 hours or a total distance of 9 miles.

Average hiking speed for people is around 2 to 3 mph at a regular walking gait, on smooth ground, like a road. Add hills, gullies, rough terrain etc., and it goes down real quick. But even on an ideal surface, you can't calculate distance with just speed x time. That's because human leg muscles tire, feet blister, and therefore 10 miles is quite a stretch for the regular person of normal conditioning. 20 miles of hiking in a day is extreme, regardless of the hours available in which to do it. So regardless of the time, a hiker is going to poop out around 10-15 miles and need a long rest.

Cooper would have been highly motivated to walk as long as necessary, but given 9 hours to escape and reach safety before daylight, in that terrain, I would expect he could only cover about 10-15 miles tops. Then if not to safety yet, he would likely have needed to hide-out somewhere during daylight hours, rest up, and continue his journey the following night. Maybe that shack that Joe mentions?...

Yes, a Victor Airway is defined as being 8 nautical miles (nm) wide. But, the interpretation of this fact being made on this board is incorrect.

When flying VFR (Visual Flight Rules) and not on a flight plan and not being followed on ďFlight FollowingĒ You need to be aware of the Victor Airways when you are 4 nm from the centerline. You need to visually identify the traffic (itís like crossing a highway). Remember not all aircraft are on a flight plan and being followed by ATC (in every condition). A VFR can go about anywhere (except for airspace restrictions).

A commercial pilot (or more properly a commercial flight) is always on an IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) flight plan. He/she has no freedom (except for safety of the flight) to vary from the flight plan (also, donít confuse a flight plan with a clearance). Once the plan was filed to use V-23 at 10,000 feet (which is not anything like a commercial pilot would normally do), then every navigation action is done using instruments. Remember this was before GPS.

The pilot would have gotten a clearance that took him southwest (my guess is to the MCKEN Intersection (some use the term Fix instead of intersection)). He would be flying the 178.00 radial off of the SEA VOR DME. When he was 35.62 nm out, he would turn toward the ONALS Fix. This is a 0 degree turn (in other words he would stay on the SEA VOR DME 178 degree radial).

He would know he was at the ONALS Fix when he was 50.15 nm away from the SEA VOR (still on the 178 degree radial) or where the 135 degree radial from the OLM VOR crossed the 178 degree radial from the SEA VOR. From the ONALS Fix he would continue to the MAYLAY Fix.

He would then continue on the 178 degree heading and would now dial in the 329.19 degree radial from the BTG VOR and note when he was on the 150.93 degree radial and 33.46 nm from the OLM VOR and then turn to the 329.16 degree and 41.12 nm from the BTG VOR. And so onÖ..

I may have missed something here, but the point Iím trying to make is at no time is the pilot wandering harem-skarem across the eight mile width of the Victor Airway. Instead he is on a very precise path along the centerline of V-23.

Another issue that everyone seems to have missed (or at least no one has commented about), is a puzzling statement in the NWA logs that Ckret provided us. The 7:57 PM or 8:01 PM transmission (Iím not sure of the logging format, so Iíll assume 8:01) My interpretation of what it says is:

Flight Operations: What is your altitude? Flt 305: Now at fifteen thousand, indicated airspeed is 160knts, Fuel Flow 4000 lbs/min (???I guess??), flaps at 15 degrees, gear down condition. Will stay at Ten Thousand until he has left. Flt Operations: Received message.

The first altitude reported is 15,000 feet, (not out of 15,0000 which would indicate he was decending). If a guy who says he has a bomb on an aircraft says: ďDonít exceed 10,000 feetĒ; then by God you donít exceed 10,000 feet. It might explode at a higher altitude (pressure switch). The log goes on to say he will remain at 10,000 ft, so does that mean the 15,000 feet parameter was a typo? If so, how much else is in error? Also, when reporting the flight parameters (flaps, wheels, etc.) there is no mention of the aft stairs. You know the aft stairs open, will change the flight characteristics. So, if it wasnít reported, does that mean, the aft door was still closed? At 15,000 feet with the door open (unpressurized) the pilots would need to be on oxygen (for any reasonable length of time).

The closest thing to facts we have in this case, come from Ckret (at least thatís my belief). So, when the material he supplies is full of contradictions, then we might as well be speculating.

Ckret, once again, can we get more of the RTTY log? It would be helpful in understanding if they were making mistakes due to stress or whatever? If there is a reason you canít supply them, just say so, and Iíll move on to something else.

So, find facts, speculate, or speculate about the facts we find, itís all the same.